--- John Winterflood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul wrote: > > I really don't see it that way. The carbon > resistor is > > made of atoms containing charged particles. The > noise > > is relative to the temperature of the charged > > particles. > > Neither do I. I was trying to illustrate that > assigning the noise source to the radiation > resistance itself or some other thing such as > the E-M radiation that is bouncing around in it, > is similar to trying to separate the resistance > of the conductive paths in a resistor from the > electrons that are bouncing along them. > > We don't know what the aether is made of, but we > do know that it supports electromagnetic waves > and fluctuations. The spectrum of these > fluctuations can be used to assign it a black > body temperature. The temperature of deepest > darkest space determined by this spectrum comes > out around 2.7K. If the same measurement was > done in a lab it would indicate an "aether > black body temperature" of ~300K. If you attempt > to couple to this aether with an antenna, then > this radiation temperature will comes in through > your antenna and the radiation resistance seen by > the circuit looks identical to a ~300K warm > resistor.
I'm also a believer in some form of Aether. > > Why are you interject flicker noise with this > example? > > It's thermal noise. > > I have tried several times to educate you to the > fact that the extra (or excess) noise found in > carbon resistors is _not_ true thermal noise but > is produced by DC current passing through the > resistor. Why don't you read the wiki for yourself? > Here is what it says: > > "Flicker noise is found in carbon composition > resistors, where it is referred to as excess noise, > since it increases the overall noise level above > the thermal noise level, which is present in all > resistors. In contrast, wire-wound resistors have > the least amount of flicker noise. Since flicker > noise is related to the level of DC, if the current > is kept low, thermal noise will be the predominant > effect in the resistor, and the type of resistor > used will not affect noise levels." I did not know that. Sorry about that. :-) I knew about flicker noise, but not that it made the difference between carbon and metal film. I was just looking at a real experiment on flicker noise graph of carbon resistor. As you know the noise is relative to 1/f and current. It's dependent on current, not DC current. Here's an interesting quote from http://www-tcad.stanford.edu/tcad/pubs/theses/goo.pdf "Carbon composition resistors exhibit current-dependent excess noise due to the random formation and extinction of macro arcs among neighboring carbon granules." The "macro arcs" sound very interesting. Also, here's another interesting quote, http://www.dsprelated.com/showmessage/23702/1.php "In most resistors there are two other noises which are far larger than the Johnson noise. There is the generally larger so-called 'shot noise' which is proportional to the current through the resistor and which unlike the white [flat] Johnson noise actually gets larger below a certain corner frequency, i.e. it's a 1/f noise effect, plus there is also the larger so-called current noise which is proportional to the voltage applied and is usually rated in uVoltsrms/Volt which also rises below a corner frequency, i.e. also a 1/f effect!" Notice it refers to two causes of shot noise. 1. Proportional to current. 2. Proportional to voltage. It seems #2 remains unchanged to the amount of resistance, whereas #1 changes with resistance. Anyhow, back to the experiment. Since there will be current flowing in the carbon resistor due to thermal noise, it will exhibit more voltage noise than the metal film and therefore the carbon resistor will get colder than the metal film resistor. > Please note the last phrase: "the type of resistor > used will not affect the noise levels". Maybe you > wish to disagree with common experimental knowledge? > If so you should provide some reference for your as > yet baseless assertion. Again, radiation resistance itself does not exhibit any detectable noise. If there is Aether noise at flicker noise frequencies then it is so that it has not been measured. The amount of noise coming from the antenna is due to the wire, not the radiation resistance. > If you are right, then it would be true that you > could beat the 2nd law! But you wouldn't need an > antenna - simply connecting two resistors with > different thermal noise generation levels > electrically would be sufficient to create a > temperature difference between them in an otherwise > uniform ambient. It really depends on ones interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There are physicists who have spent time debating the 2nd law and have therefore been force to adhere to the most extreme interpretation of the 2nd law, which is such a rigid interpretation that results in no known example that can even demonstrate such a rigid interpretation is correct. You seem to adhere to a less rigid 2nd law interpretation, which seems to be what most physicists follow. Although, the less rigid interpretation is breakable. Personally I do not follow the illusions of limitations, as I believe all things are possible. :-) Regards, Paul ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $510k for $1,698/mo. Calculate new payment! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
